Comments on: Are Democrats making a mistake? http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/ Obsessive political analysis Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:55:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: dsimon http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17743 dsimon Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:45:15 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17743 It will be interesting to see how Specter votes when his vote is really needed. Schumer's knock on the "moderate" Susan Collins is that she'd be the 62nd or 63rd vote, but when her vote was needed for 60 (or 51 as the case may be) she'd look at McConnell to get her instructions. And what's the use of being a moderate if you never act on your moderation when it might really matter? So I wonder with Specter to what extent he'll really buck his new party when the chips are down. While he talked a good game on a number of issues, it seemed to me that he always voted with his party or otherwise did their bidding whenever it really mattered. If that's the way he's going to vote as a Democrat, they'll be happy to have him around. (And on most legislation, Democrats will need him for cloture but he'd be free to vote however he wants on the legislation itself.) There's also the threat of a primary challenge if Specter bails on important votes, though the prospect of taking on an incumbent senator who seems to have the backing of the DSCC would be daunting. It would be a big risk for a sitting House member to take (since it would mean giving up the seat to run) and require a ton of money, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. It will be interesting to see how Specter votes when his vote is really needed. Schumer’s knock on the “moderate” Susan Collins is that she’d be the 62nd or 63rd vote, but when her vote was needed for 60 (or 51 as the case may be) she’d look at McConnell to get her instructions. And what’s the use of being a moderate if you never act on your moderation when it might really matter?

So I wonder with Specter to what extent he’ll really buck his new party when the chips are down. While he talked a good game on a number of issues, it seemed to me that he always voted with his party or otherwise did their bidding whenever it really mattered. If that’s the way he’s going to vote as a Democrat, they’ll be happy to have him around. (And on most legislation, Democrats will need him for cloture but he’d be free to vote however he wants on the legislation itself.)

There’s also the threat of a primary challenge if Specter bails on important votes, though the prospect of taking on an incumbent senator who seems to have the backing of the DSCC would be daunting. It would be a big risk for a sitting House member to take (since it would mean giving up the seat to run) and require a ton of money, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

]]> By: st paul sage http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17706 st paul sage Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:18:24 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17706 i agree with a lot of the posters here. this is about the next 8 years, not the 6 starting in '10. further, we could lose to specter in '10 (like we have every other time). we will have to see how he votes/leads on the issues that come up in the next year and a half, but i'm inclined to trust obama and rendell that they understand PA & US Senate politics better than I do. i agree with a lot of the posters here. this is about the next 8 years, not the 6 starting in ‘10. further, we could lose to specter in ‘10 (like we have every other time).

we will have to see how he votes/leads on the issues that come up in the next year and a half, but i’m inclined to trust obama and rendell that they understand PA & US Senate politics better than I do.

]]> By: Sam S http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17700 Sam S Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:09:09 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17700 While I would like a more progressive candidate then Specter, trying to primary opponents because they don't pass the party litmus test ALWAYS leads to trouble (See the current Republican party or the Democratic party (circa 1994). I think instead of spending time worrying about what Specter will or won't vote for, the Democratic party needs to expand their majority in moderate states. The more people you have in your party the greater the chance you'll find 60 that agree with you (or at least agree to vote for cloture). I'd rather have 67 senators who I agree with most of the time, then 55 senators who I agree with all of the time. While I would like a more progressive candidate then Specter, trying to primary opponents because they don’t pass the party litmus test ALWAYS leads to trouble (See the current Republican party or the Democratic party (circa 1994).

I think instead of spending time worrying about what Specter will or won’t vote for, the Democratic party needs to expand their majority in moderate states. The more people you have in your party the greater the chance you’ll find 60 that agree with you (or at least agree to vote for cloture). I’d rather have 67 senators who I agree with most of the time, then 55 senators who I agree with all of the time.

]]> By: Tom http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17689 Tom Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:37:49 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17689 It will be of interest to see whether Kay Bailey Hutchison bolts the Senate sooner rather than later, now that the Dems have 60 seats (Franken included, of course). If she does, would her seat not be a possilbe gain for Dems? And is there any chance that McCain could lose his primary to Simcox? If so, would the Dems have a credible candidate to take on the far-right GOP nominee? Finally, I've been reading Olympia Snowe's recent comments carefully and wonder if she, too, may find the GOP an inhospitable place in which to carry out her work. I am not conviced she will leave, but Specter's move has certainly given her pause. That would add an extra two seats and one additional Democrat to figure into the 2010 mix. It will be of interest to see whether Kay Bailey Hutchison bolts the Senate sooner rather than later, now that the Dems have 60 seats (Franken included, of course). If she does, would her seat not be a possilbe gain for Dems? And is there any chance that McCain could lose his primary to Simcox? If so, would the Dems have a credible candidate to take on the far-right GOP nominee? Finally, I’ve been reading Olympia Snowe’s recent comments carefully and wonder if she, too, may find the GOP an inhospitable place in which to carry out her work. I am not conviced she will leave, but Specter’s move has certainly given her pause. That would add an extra two seats and one additional Democrat to figure into the 2010 mix.

]]> By: Jaxx Raxor http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17677 Jaxx Raxor Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:43:41 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17677 Certaintly CT is not the only race that Republicans can conceivably pick up, but it's the only Democratic held race that I see as a toss-up. Dodd is almost a Democratic version of Jim Bunning, and if the ecnomny indeeds doesn't pick up, then Dodd is as good as gone. If Castle jumps into the Deleware Senate race then that be a very tough race for Democrats but other than that I don't see the Republicans having much of a chance in some of the other races because the incumbent is either not weak enough or the opposition is not strong enough, and often both. While Bennet ratings are mediocore, so are his prospective opponents and he still has alot of money and time to build his name recognition. Even if the ecnonmy is the same in 2010 as it is now it will be pratically impossible for the GOP to win back the Senate, let alone actually get any net gain of Senate that is more than one. Perhaps in 2012 if the ecnomny hasn't gotten back together again can the GOP make a big comeback. But if does come back, then I don't think the GOP will have any realistic chance. I'm not convinced that the Democrats are doomed to lose seats in 2012. Indeed, the thing is that most seats up for reelection in 2012 will be mostly Democratic thanks to the significant gains made in 2006. If Obama doesn't become very unpopular and/or the GOP continues to move mostly to the right, it will be difficult for them to make Senate gains. I would say that 2014 gains are more likely because it is very common for Presidents in their last midterm election to get a slump, even Reagan had one thanks to Iran-Contra. Certaintly CT is not the only race that Republicans can conceivably pick up, but it’s the only Democratic held race that I see as a toss-up. Dodd is almost a Democratic version of Jim Bunning, and if the ecnomny indeeds doesn’t pick up, then Dodd is as good as gone. If Castle jumps into the Deleware Senate race then that be a very tough race for Democrats but other than that I don’t see the Republicans having much of a chance in some of the other races because the incumbent is either not weak enough or the opposition is not strong enough, and often both. While Bennet ratings are mediocore, so are his prospective opponents and he still has alot of money and time to build his name recognition. Even if the ecnonmy is the same in 2010 as it is now it will be pratically impossible for the GOP to win back the Senate, let alone actually get any net gain of Senate that is more than one. Perhaps in 2012 if the ecnomny hasn’t gotten back together again can the GOP make a big comeback. But if does come back, then I don’t think the GOP will have any realistic chance.

I’m not convinced that the Democrats are doomed to lose seats in 2012. Indeed, the thing is that most seats up for reelection in 2012 will be mostly Democratic thanks to the significant gains made in 2006. If Obama doesn’t become very unpopular and/or the GOP continues to move mostly to the right, it will be difficult for them to make Senate gains. I would say that 2014 gains are more likely because it is very common for Presidents in their last midterm election to get a slump, even Reagan had one thanks to Iran-Contra.

]]> By: MSW http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17676 MSW Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:37:37 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17676 I think the Democratic party and Specter is a good enough fit. The Democratic party is a big tent party, much more so than the GOP. He is independent minded, and therefore less reliable than other rank and file Democrats. But that's not a bad thing at all. He will add some additional gray hair to the party and will probably moderate some of his more conservative political positions. The next congress won't begin until January 2011, 20 months from now. Having Specter on board for these next 20 months is a big coup for the Dems. It also will make the GOP reassess some of their more hard-line conservative stances. The GOP have taken the dying moderate wing of their party for granted for too long. I think the Democratic party and Specter is a good enough fit. The Democratic party is a big tent party, much more so than the GOP. He is independent minded, and therefore less reliable than other rank and file Democrats. But that’s not a bad thing at all. He will add some additional gray hair to the party and will probably moderate some of his more conservative political positions.

The next congress won’t begin until January 2011, 20 months from now. Having Specter on board for these next 20 months is a big coup for the Dems. It also will make the GOP reassess some of their more hard-line conservative stances. The GOP have taken the dying moderate wing of their party for granted for too long.

]]> By: fritz http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17674 fritz Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:52:47 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17674 I don't think the Democrats are looking forward all that much to 2010. Obama's main agenda is going to be passed (or not) in the next year and they are keyed on making that happen. I agree they are likely to pick up 2 - 3 seats in 2010 and therefore Specter will be less important post 2010. He is also likely to vote more liberally than he did as a Republican without the threat of losing a primary hanging over his head. Lastly Arlin Specter is 79 and in debatable health. This will likely be is last campaign and he will want to be a major force in the Senate in the years he has left. I expect he will be a leading advocate of the Obama agenda and not a Ben Nelson style Democrat. I don’t think the Democrats are looking forward all that much to 2010. Obama’s main agenda is going to be passed (or not) in the next year and they are keyed on making that happen. I agree they are likely to pick up 2 - 3 seats in 2010 and therefore Specter will be less important post 2010.
He is also likely to vote more liberally than he did as a Republican without the threat of losing a primary hanging over his head.
Lastly Arlin Specter is 79 and in debatable health. This will likely be is last campaign and he will want to be a major force in the Senate in the years he has left. I expect he will be a leading advocate of the Obama agenda and not a Ben Nelson style Democrat.

]]> By: Taniel http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17612 Taniel Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:25:49 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17612 Jaxx, I agree that Dems are still likely to pick-up Senate seats in 2010 (even if we don't count PA as a switch), which should put them beyond 60 in the 112th Congress. A few points, however: (1) That does not mean that they will not come to regret not having Schwarz or Murphy in Specter's place. (2) Democrats are almost guaranteed to lose some seats in 2012 and in 2014 (how could they protect everything they gained in 2006 and in 2008?), so the number of reliable Democratic vote will matter greatly in the 113th and 114th Congress - i.e. in the entirety of Obama's second term, if he wins re-election. (3) We can't reduce the list of endangered Democratic seats to CT: There's Bennet in Colorado, Kirk and Castle could make IL and DE competitive, and Reid and Lincoln can't be considered fully safe. Right now, it's hard to imagine more than one of these losing. But it's definitely enough endangered Democrats that the GOP could have a good night if they get even a breeze in their favor next year. Jaxx,
I agree that Dems are still likely to pick-up Senate seats in 2010 (even if we don’t count PA as a switch), which should put them beyond 60 in the 112th Congress. A few points, however: (1) That does not mean that they will not come to regret not having Schwarz or Murphy in Specter’s place. (2) Democrats are almost guaranteed to lose some seats in 2012 and in 2014 (how could they protect everything they gained in 2006 and in 2008?), so the number of reliable Democratic vote will matter greatly in the 113th and 114th Congress - i.e. in the entirety of Obama’s second term, if he wins re-election.

(3) We can’t reduce the list of endangered Democratic seats to CT: There’s Bennet in Colorado, Kirk and Castle could make IL and DE competitive, and Reid and Lincoln can’t be considered fully safe. Right now, it’s hard to imagine more than one of these losing. But it’s definitely enough endangered Democrats that the GOP could have a good night if they get even a breeze in their favor next year.

]]> By: Jaxx Raxor http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/are-democrats-gaining-much/comment-page-1/#comment-17611 Jaxx Raxor Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:15:48 +0000 http://campaigndiaries.com/?p=7752#comment-17611 As I said in the comments section of yoru previous post, Democrats are strongly favored to pick up a net gain of a couple of seats, at least one if Dems lose CT but win in NH and KY, and possibly more with Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida if Crist doesn't jump in (and even if Crist did jump in and win, he could very well replace Specter and join the Maine ladies as part of the Moderate Republican Trifecta). Therefore it wouldn't be too long until Spectar would matter alot less. To predict a total ecnomic recovery by the fall of 2010 is probably too much, but it will take a sustained econmic weakening for the GOP to get a net loss of seats in the U.S. senate. The Moderate Democrats will definitly have a golden opportunity to make demands from Obama so that he wouldn't be embarssed upon legislation not passing through, but I doubt that they would destroy Obama's agenda. Especailly when cloture vs actual vote on a bill could be used. As I said in the comments section of yoru previous post, Democrats are strongly favored to pick up a net gain of a couple of seats, at least one if Dems lose CT but win in NH and KY, and possibly more with Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida if Crist doesn’t jump in (and even if Crist did jump in and win, he could very well replace Specter and join the Maine ladies as part of the Moderate Republican Trifecta). Therefore it wouldn’t be too long until Spectar would matter alot less. To predict a total ecnomic recovery by the fall of 2010 is probably too much, but it will take a sustained econmic weakening for the GOP to get a net loss of seats in the U.S. senate. The Moderate Democrats will definitly have a golden opportunity to make demands from Obama so that he wouldn’t be embarssed upon legislation not passing through, but I doubt that they would destroy Obama’s agenda. Especailly when cloture vs actual vote on a bill could be used.

]]>